Downtown Vancouver Updates

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That end of Granville already has plenty of vacant apparently unwanted retail units, so having a slightly smaller one here doesn't seem to be a big loss in this case. I'm pretty sure it's the developer's choice to put the amenity space on the ground floor - the zoning just says there has to be a room, not where it goes.

Yes, and if anything the demand for retail space is going to decrease post-Covid. I'm not sure why some think having a Zoomba studio on the ground floor is "better" than having the building's fitness centre there.

[osirisboy]

Is this not part of the Granville entertainment district? Or does that stop at Davie? Would be nice to see some new developments that have bar/clubs and residential above. And as someone who lived directly over the bayside lounge it can be done. noise was not an issue

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Basically the sentiment that I am understanding here is that because Granville street is in decline that we shouldn't be redeveloping lots to reach their full potential on the downtown peninsula? I'm sensing some stealth-NIMBYism here.

We have people renting closets for goodness sake.

Perfect is the enemy of good. If a YIMBY wants to solve the closet problem, they can waste half a year trying to push for maybe two extra floors with fourteen new units... or they can get this one built right now, then push for several more six-floors around the block (starting with the thrift store across the street), and get hundreds.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by scryer

Basically the sentiment that I am understanding here is that because Granville street is in decline that we shouldn't be redeveloping lots to reach their full potential on the downtown peninsula? I'm sensing some stealth-NIMBYism here.

We have people renting closets for goodness sake.

Not every owner of land has unlimited budgets and unlimited risk profiles when they build something. I'm sensing stealth-pie in the sky attitudes about how areas get redeveloped.

If anything it's waiting for the upswing and not a decline. And even if there was an upswing it still wouldn't drastically change the economics of what fits on a tiny little lot on Granville Street.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Is this not part of the Granville entertainment district? Or does that stop at Davie? Would be nice to see some new developments that have bar/clubs and residential above. And as someone who lived directly over the bayside lounge it can be done. noise was not an issue

Only 600-900 is technically part of the district.

When 1142 Granville (Bosa) got redeveloped some people complained about residential being so close to the district. 8 stories but on a wider lot.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20100518/documents/p1.pdf

[Klazu]

I am confused about the Barclay/Thurlow proposal. Where is that 47-storey tower supposed to go and is this a new project or a redesign?

[officedweller]

I think it's the first proposal for that site.

*****************

From the Hive:

Iconic "words" sign permanently removed from Vancouver Public Library plaza

After being in its position for more than a decade, “The Words Don’t Fit The Picture” public art sign was removed from the Vancouver Public Library’s (VPL) Central Branch’s southern plaza.
...

“This decision was made collectively by a jury composed of representatives from the VPL and the local art community who looked at a number of considerations for the future of the piece,” reads an email from the City to Daily Hive.

This decision was made in conjunction with Terada, who advised the city to decommission and remove his piece.

“Upcoming changes to the design of the plaza left no future site for the artwork, which was designed as a site-specific work for the Central Library,” continues the statement.
...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/words-dont-fit-the-picture-sign-vancouver-public-library

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am confused about the Barclay/Thurlow proposal. Where is that 47-storey tower supposed to go and is this a new project or a redesign?

This is a new proposal. It is directly across the street from the proposed Buro Ole Scheeran twin towers. The North/East corner which is currently occupied by a very ugly 3 or 4 storey condo building. If all are build in this cluster, it's gonna be pretty sweet.

https://imgur.com/lGAtxaS

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Perfect is the enemy of good. If a YIMBY wants to solve the closet problem, they can waste half a year trying to push for maybe two extra floors with fourteen new units... or they can get this one built right now, then push for several more six-floors around the block (starting with the thrift store across the street), and get hundreds.

This one is obviously a lost cause but that doesn't mean that everyday citizens shouldn't be pushing for smarter future development opportunities within the city - and in this string of conversation, specifically for the downtown peninsula. I will never understand why there is a feeling out there that we can't maintain a high standard for density in the downtown peninsula while other areas are developing densely at the same time .

It is incredibly shortsighted to think that by building mediocrity (in terms of the building's density vs the area it is built in) quickly, will become a real solution to the space crisis in Vancouver as opposed to smarter urban planning strategies such as maximizing density where it makes sense such as, you guessed it, the downtown peninsula.

There is a plethora of projects that are proposed or under construction that are 6 floors high (rental and strata) all across the city along streets like Main Street, Cambie, Arbutus, etc with more on the way. I am extremely happy to see those go up because they are providing some quicker reactions to the spacing crisis. However it simply does not make sense that this corner can only command the same kind of density for its location unless one of those reasons is that there are city policies that affects the developer's choice to go denser.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Not every owner of land has unlimited budgets and unlimited risk profiles when they build something. I'm sensing stealth-pie in the sky attitudes about how areas get redeveloped.

8-12 floors in the downtown peninsula for a mid-rise is pie-in-the-sky?



Let's talk developers since you brought it up. For this particular instance I'm assuming that you don't have any direct insights but I am happy to be wrong. Just loosely reviewing the other projects that GBL architect has completed or under construction, including 8X (a 36 floor building iirc), I think that it wouldn't be a shot in the dark to say that this specific developer could afford an 8-12 midrise on 1294 Granville. To me this kind of a development opportunity shows that it is attracting developers with advanced portfolios, a good track record, and the finances to afford the lot in the first place.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If anything it's waiting for the upswing and not a decline.

There are actually 1 or 2 other proposals looking to add more offices (?) on Granville iirc. Personally I think that Granville street is currently in a decline but also on the cusp of achieving an upswing. When these proposals on Granville street get approved then it will move into an upswing.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

And even if there was an upswing it still wouldn't drastically change the economics of what fits on a tiny little lot on Granville Street.

Economics - To simplify: we have a space crisis, a rental vacancy less than 1%, a real estate market hotter than Mount Doom, and a location directly on the downtown peninsula (which is rare to get and "easy" to get a positive ROI); what more do you want for economics ?

Engineering - Are you suggesting that Canada does not possess the technological capabilities to build a 8-12 floor building on this site when 432 Park Avenue in NYC (85 floors) exists?

Before we can blame any kind of a developer, as regular citizens, we should be demanding smarter city policies in lieu of our space crisis. Demanding for relaxations on parking requirements and relaxations on height restrictions in the downtown peninsula (for starters) will help make denser developments more appealing and attract developers willing to build those kinds of projects. If not, then at least Senakw will help change the outdated views on development as it has both height and less parking.

Just to give a brief snapshot, right now in Vancouver, there are city policies that dictate that a developer must supply an abundance of parking spaces ontop of height restrictions in the downtown peninsula. My point has always been that people need to speak up about city policies like those that stifle dense development since smart urban planning is one of our main combatants against climate change and our space crisis. Before we can blame developers and the like for not developing densely enough, I just think that we should get our own outdated city policies updated to show developers that we are "open for business" for denser projects.

[GenWhy?]

Is this building in question woodframe or concrete.

The majority of Granville is restricted to roughly 90' for all buildings except hotels, if I recall. This is to prevent what we see in the CBD where it's walls of buildings. The idea is to have wide sidewalks with patios and retain natural light. This is currently being reviewed, but with a site this size I don't think the supposed changes, if they come at all, would affect the height of the site.

[GenWhy?]

Parking changes have already happened in Downtown and for City. Condos and offices many Clients and marketers wish to retain a decent amount of parking because it's "the norm".

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Just to give a brief snapshot, right now in Vancouver, there are city policies that dictate that a developer must supply an abundance of parking spaces ontop of height restrictions in the downtown peninsula. My point has always been that people need to speak up about city policies like those that stifle dense development since smart urban planning is one of our main combatants against climate change and our space crisis. Before we can blame developers and the like for not developing densely enough, I just think that we should get our own outdated city policies updated to show developers that we are "open for business" for denser projects.

In Downtown Vancouver there are now no requirements for an abundance of parking. This project is proposing 2 car share spaces and one loading bay, at grade, on the lane. The policies have been revised - they're no longer outdated.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by scryer

Engineering - Are you suggesting that Canada does not possess the technological capabilities to build a 8-12 floor building on this site when 432 Park Avenue in NYC (85 floors) exists?

Yeah, I was going to bring up they can design skyscrapers on tiny lots but then I thought maybe he's not going to compare that corner and NYC real estate fronting onto Central Park built by billionaires who have big egos. I was wrong.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Graham_Yvr

This is a new proposal. It is directly across the street from the proposed Buro Ole Scheeran twin towers. The North/East corner which is currently occupied by a very ugly 3 or 4 storey condo building. If all are build in this cluster, it's gonna be pretty sweet.

https://imgur.com/lGAtxaS

Thank you. I thought Robson Street shadowing prevented tall towers any more to the north and this one will be really tall. I hope it gets built and that block will be crazy once all towers are completed.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's a small lot and the building is going right to the lot line. Maybe some set back on the alley side, but it is still higher density than it looks.

Paris is built with 6 story buildings, and it's plenty dense.

Can't compare, because Paris has 6 storey buildings throughout the whole city, and not confined to certain areas. For us we need to build even denser on the few sites available.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Engineering - Are you suggesting that Canada does not possess the technological capabilities to build a 8-12 floor building on this site when 432 Park Avenue in NYC (85 floors) exists?

Weren't posters saying last month that comparisons to Manhattan were hyperbolic and that we weren't at that level yet?

Originally Posted by scryer

This one is obviously a lost cause but that doesn't mean that everyday citizens shouldn't be pushing for smarter future development opportunities within the city - and in this string of conversation, specifically for the downtown peninsula. I will never understand why there is a feeling out there that we can't maintain a high standard for density in the downtown peninsula while other areas are developing densely at the same time .

It is incredibly shortsighted to think that by building mediocrity (in terms of the building's density vs the area it is built in) quickly, will become a real solution to the space crisis in Vancouver as opposed to smarter urban planning strategies such as maximizing density where it makes sense such as, you guessed it, the downtown peninsula.

There is a plethora of projects that are proposed or under construction that are 6 floors high (rental and strata) all across the city along streets like Main Street, Cambie, Arbutus, etc with more on the way. I am extremely happy to see those go up because they are providing some quicker reactions to the spacing crisis. However it simply does not make sense that this corner can only command the same kind of density for its location unless one of those reasons is that there are city policies that affects the developer's choice to go denser.

Granville =/= Main, Arbutus or Cambie, especially because a much smaller floorplate also means smaller and fewer homes. If one or two floors and an extra seven units per floor is the difference between "dumb and "smart" or "mediocrity" and "excellence," then it's also the difference between "YIMBY" and "inflexible zealot."

There is a housing crisis, we need to speak up about it... and there are much better mountains to die on than Vancouver's Greenwich.

[GenWhy?]

If this was above 6 storeys and concrete instead of woodframe it would not be rental. Due to the site's size I doubt it would ever be rental and concrete and they would be pricey condos at that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

If this was above 6 storeys and concrete instead of woodframe it would not be rental. Due to the site's size I doubt it would ever be rental and concrete and they would be pricey condos at that.

I don't think the application says whether it's strata or rental. I wouldn't be surprised to see the basement and main floor in concrete, and then the top five floors wood frame.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think the application says whether it's strata or rental. I wouldn't be surprised to see the basement and main floor in concrete, and then the top five floors wood frame.

Agreed, just responding to folk's comments on economics of building hypothetical scenarios on this site. It appears most likely to be woodframe due to the absence of a scissor stair.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Agreed, just responding to folk's comments on economics of building hypothetical scenarios on this site. It appears most likely to be woodframe due to the absence of a scissor stair.

The landscaping plan has a label "building slab by architecture" which suggests concrete?